Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

[jj]

Oh give it a rest Fade. Try to be nice for once in your life.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Btw, Fade, I surely do understand your frustration.

 

[jj]

Hi Ian and welcome to the board.

Some time ago I wrote you and so did Dr. Gary Schwartz to ask if you would be interested in serving as a control for cold reading in any future mediumship studies where you would be available.
I

Hooo boy. Now that's an experimental design for ya!

Steve, are you so blind as to not see the myriad holes in what you're proposing?

 

[jj]

Lol, neo.
I think there's a bit of that in there, yes. (renata, have you visited Ian's website? Last time I did he had a "Photo Gallery" with "my friends" or something...all women, different looks, lots and lots, with captions making it clear that...yes, he likes women! Nothing wrong with that. And he also made it clear, imho, from something he posted there that he has a girl friend but is still looking and available if the right person should come along). I'm sure he would love to meet some of his attractive fans (if this means RC in drag, so be it! lol)

Also, neo and I have exchanged emails with him. He's very nice, a tiny bit flirtatious even online (in an appropriate way)--and her comment was intended as an inside joke with me, not as a dig at Ian. We both like him and, as I titled this thread, think he seems (from his writing, and online pronouncements) like--as I said--a nice guy. (And a very attractive one, too )

Right, character assassination is not a dig at somebody.

Gimme a break. No, give me two. You can both go back to Wooville.

 

[jj]

Renata, for someone who blasted Clancie yesterday because she chose to (in your words) make a big deal out of something that you found not to be germane to the thread topic, you sure don't practice what you preach!

Oh, here we go. Character assassination is cool, if it's only pointed at the other side.

(considers relating this to a couple of political parties and a well-known propaganda technique, but doesn't bother)

 

[jj]

Interesting. I would expect you, if you erred, to err on the side of freedom.

Freedom implies responsibility.

 

[WooBot]

Freedom implies responsibility.

Certainly it does. You're late to the party, jj.

It just seemed to me that these people all have some sort of history together and took one rather tame remark and made a huge deal out of it. If you re-read the "offending remark" it looks pretty tame to me. Certainly not worth all this hand-wringing which clearly results from some other source.

Here's the awful remark, in its entirety:

Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

Not much to base all this drama on IMHO.

 

[Fade]

Btw, Fade, I surely do understand your frustration.

Part frustration, part exasperation, part indifference.

RC is a simplistic creduloid and doesn't even understand that. I believe he described himself as "quasi-believer" at some ponit. It's a position that, while being exactly as ignorant as people like Clancie and Ian, isn't even a firm expression of ideas.

 

[SteveGrenard]

CFL: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

He makes claims, refused to answer me or Schwartz when his cooperation was solicited and here's his chance to reverse that.


TLN...here is a brief description of the design for the exeriment(s) involving John Edward. Barring any additional suggestions, can we expect an agreement from Rowland to participate as a reader-froid in the same design?

The study investigated the ability of three research mediums to obtain information regarding the deceased loved ones of five research "sitters" (subjects). The mediums were kept completely blind to the identity of the sitters. The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras. The mediums were not allowed to ask any questions, and the sitters never spoke. Transcripts were made from the recordings. The sitters scored all initials, names, historical facts, personal descriptions, and temperament descriptions (n=528 items for 15 readings) using a -3 (definite miss) to +3 (definite hit) rating scale. When the sitters rated their own readings, the average percentage of +3 scores was 40%. When the sitters rated the readings of the other sitters (control readings), the value was 25% (p<0.03).

 

[TLN]

The study investigated the ability of three research mediums to obtain information regarding the deceased loved ones of five research "sitters" (subjects). The mediums were kept completely blind to the identity of the sitters. The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras. The mediums were not allowed to ask any questions, and the sitters never spoke. Transcripts were made from the recordings. The sitters scored all initials, names, historical facts, personal descriptions, and temperament descriptions (n=528 items for 15 readings) using a -3 (definite miss) to +3 (definite hit) rating scale. When the sitters rated their own readings, the average percentage of +3 scores was 40%. When the sitters rated the readings of the other sitters (control readings), the value was 25% (p<0.03).

Where did you collect this testing protocol? From Schwartz? Where can I view it (besides here)?

 

[CFLarsen]

He makes claims, refused to answer me or Schwartz when his cooperation was solicited and here's his chance to reverse that.

Steve, yes or no: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

 

[Clancie]

Steve quoting CFLarsen

CFL: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

You know what puzzles me most, Steve, is why CFLarsen would apparently try to sabotage the opportunity to communicate with Ian about a scientific investigation of cold reading? Maybe, as you say, Ian never even got your email. Maybe he didn't have time to respond. So what?

I don't understand CFL's motivation for trying to discredit you to Ian here.

But then...CFL always tries to undercut you, one way or another, doesn't he? I guess there's nothing surprising in his posts to this thread after all .

And, in any case, what does any of Claus' animosity toward you have to do with Schwartz and his experiments?

It doesn't even make sense.

 

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: The claim has been made that purportedly genuine mediums cold read. Ian has claimed that he could do as well as these purportedly genuine mediums. Such a test would be necessary to validate that claim.

I disagree that such a test is necessary. Regardless of the outcome of that kind of test, it would not validate Schwartz's claim that JE can talk to dead people. I disagree that using cold readers as controls validates JE's alleged psychic ability.

In any case, the claim made by cold readers is a criticism of Schwartz's protocols. It is not necessary for such criticisms to be tested. It is up to Schwartz to redo his tests to address the criticisms, to tighten his protocols to preclude cold reading as a possible explanation. It is not incumbant upon cold readers to disprove Schwartz's claims.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is friggin' hilarious! Clancie, you "ignore" me, yet find it prudent to comment on something I posted, because someone else quoted me??

Either you don't ignore me, which renders you a liar. Or, you really do ignore me, which makes your comments willfully uninformed. At best.

This is priceless!!

You know what puzzles me most, Steve, is why CFLarsen would apparently try to sabotage your opportunity to communicate with Ian about it now, here? Maybe, as you say, Ian never even got your email. Maybe he didn't have time to respond.

Maybe, as I said, Ian never even got his mail. Maybe, as I said, he didn't have time to respond. I made these points in the TVTalkshow thread, Steve did not. Now, it's OK to raise these points?

And you wonder why I at times have called you a hypocrite?

It would seem skeptics would jump at the possibility that perhaps a cold reader would be willing to participate in a experiment about mediumship and cold reading.

Sure! I would LOVE to see Ian "compete" with John Edward! Wouldn't you??

I don't understand CFL's motivation for trying to discredit you to Ian here.

I am not trying to "discredit" Steve. I am simply pointing out Steve's sudden need to suck up to Ian, whom he previously referred to as a liar. Among other things.

But then...CFL always tries to undercut you, one way or another, doesn't he? I guess there's nothing surprising in his posts to this thread after all .

No. I don't "always" try to "undercut" Steve. I do, however, point out Steve's flaws.

And, in any case, what does any of Claus' animosity toward you have to do with Schwartz and his experiments?

Nothing. Why do you say that?

It doesn't even make sense.

.........(better not)

Clancy, please give up this pretense that you have put me on ignore. You are not fooling anyone.

 

[Darat]

Certainly it does. You're late to the party, jj.

It just seemed to me that these people all have some sort of history together and took one rather tame remark and made a huge deal out of it. If you re-read the "offending remark" it looks pretty tame to me. Certainly not worth all this hand-wringing which clearly results from some other source.

Here's the awful remark, in its entirety:

Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

Not much to base all this drama on IMHO.

And you seem to ignore that the person the "one rather tame remark" was made about felt necessary to make his first and I believe only post to date on this forum to set the record straight!

 

[jj]

It just seemed to me that these people all have some sort of history together and took one rather tame remark and made a huge deal out of it. If you re-read the "offending remark" it looks pretty tame to me. Certainly not worth all this hand-wringing which clearly results from some other source.

Well, WooBot, having seen the effects that whispering campaigns, etc, can have (at least temporarily) on people, I must simply differ. No malice is required, only the usual game of "telephone" and the usual gossip.

 

[xouper]

Clancie: I don't understand CFL's motivation for trying to discredit you to Ian here.

It seems there are lots of things you don't understand, Clancie.

I for one appreciate Larsen's continuing efforts to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, and fallacies in Grenard's position.

 

[jj]

You know what puzzles me most, Steve, is why CFLarsen would apparently try to sabotage the opportunity to communicate with Ian about a scientific investigation of cold reading? Maybe, as you say, Ian never even got your email. Maybe he didn't have time to respond. So what?
[/B]

Unh. With the right generalities, "hits" in that kind of protocol are trivial.

I wouldn't exactly call it "rigorous".

 

[jj]

It seems there are lots of things you don't understand, Clancie.

I for one appreciate Larsen's continuing efforts to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, and fallacies in Grenard's position.

And I admire his patience, as well, in the face of such intractable foolishness!

 

[Clancie]

Well, Xouper, to each his own.

I will say that I find it strange that a skeptic would purport to want to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward and then try to discredit Steve, who is trying to arrange it (and who wouldn't even be conducting the experiment himself).

At a minimum, CFL's action seems very counterproductive to shedding light on mediumship and cold reading--that is, if he sincerely wants to see such an experiment take place, which is the claim.

 

[renata]

It seems there are lots of things you don't understand, Clancie.

I for one appreciate Larsen's continuing efforts to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, and fallacies in Grenard's position.

Xoup! I thought you were not into hero worship?

I just wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly. I respect Claus precisely for the work he does in these situations. I just hope I never cross him... No peace nor rest for guilty souls! ( loose translation from Russian). And since we like ancient references, Claus, do you see yourself as Alecto, Megaera or Tisiphone?